Posted on 06/22/2006 1:28:41 PM PDT by Tim Long
600 dissenters sign on challenging claims about support for theory
More than 600 scientists holding doctoral degrees have gone on the record expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution and calling for critical examination of the evidence cited in its support.
All are signatories to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, which reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series.
The PBS promotion claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."
The list of 610 signatories includes scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, British Museum of Natural History, Moscow State University, Masaryk University in Czech Republic, Hong Kong University, University of Turku in Finland, Autonomous University of Guadalajara in Mexico, University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine in France, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.
"Dissent from Darwinism has gone global," said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. "Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist in the world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quickly started finding U.S. scientists that disproved that statement. Now we're finding that there are hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientists all over the world that don't subscribe to Darwin's theory."
The Discovery Institute is the leading promoter of the theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes. Advocates say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favor of Darwinian dogma," said Raul Leguizamon, M.D., pathologist and professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.
"Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all," he added. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say."
If you assume that common descent is true *and* that ERV 'insertions' actually occurred *and* were a singular event that occurred once in the history of a 'common ancestor', then they mean something.
All of the thousands of assumed human ERVs are defective and produce no virus particles. Human ERV 'insertions' are 'assumed' events, not observed.
It seems to me that the assumption that ERV infections occurred once and only once and can be 'traced' is a big weakness. You would need to show proof that ERV infections can only occur one in a population genome and then move to fixation in each species in which they occur. That's absurd.
If you think that you do not use 'any phylogenetic assumptions', you would be wrong.
Actually I do understand what abstract thought, metaphysical and science are. That's why I can show you where you make your errors.
What you call 'reason' is pure credulity.
No agreement on what species dogs are, huh?
So that lets you claim that the Chihuahua is a separate species without having to name it?
Same w/ the Great Dane?
What does the 'scientific' definition of species actually mean?
Nothing?
Read teh whole thread before gloating. For instance, post 37 is a nice segue for an analysis of these "scientists" in question.
Welcome to credulity, big boy.
No. Your right. I can't. I can't because you won't decide between two incommensurable criteria (abstract thought being involved on one hand, versus reference to past unobserved phenomena on the other). Not that it matters because neither criteria works anyway. They both include far too many things that no one considers "metaphysical".
I've already criticized both criteria anyway; and you haven't responded to my criticisms.
"Know"
That should be no, though knowledge was on my mind.
All of the thousands of assumed human ERVs are defective and produce no virus particles. Human ERV 'insertions' are 'assumed' events, not observed.
Read what I posted above: the pieces of genomes are considered ERVs because they contain sequences peculiar to RNA viruses, like reverse transcriptase. No assumptions here, except that what appears to be a viral genome really is one. This "assumption" is based on actually observed real-time infections.
It seems to me that the assumption that ERV infections occurred once and only once and can be 'traced' is a big weakness. You would need to show proof that ERV infections can only occur one in a population genome and then move to fixation in each species in which they occur. That's absurd.
Like it or not, their distribution is exactly what one would predict on phylogenetic grounds. Consider the fact that ERVs found in both species of Asian ape are inevitalby found in all species of African ape, including ourselves, but that the converse is not true.
If you think that you do not use 'any phylogenetic assumptions', you would be wrong.
You need to demonstrate this - where exactly was common descent used? The fact that the tree constructed from the ERV data matches the presumed phylogenetic tree is an observation that isn't going to go away and needs to be explained. Common descent is the obvious explanation - do you have a better one, one that will correctly predict the results of future gene sequencing?
Actually, there is no evidence that the universe is not 6,000 years old.
What a strange world world you live in.
Even though it is all nothing more than fancy.
There is only one way to save yourself from the coming flood.
Only one door in or out, and it is on the side.
I know that it is a big leap of understanding for many to take, but guess what Calvary is all about?
That is the Bible actually in a nutshell.
But if you want lessons, I'll try to help you out there. I don't mind providing as long as I have the time, and all with no cover charge.
When you can connect those dots, you might feel a whole lot better about what is coming down the pike.
-Radix
Exodus 21:22 is a verse you might care for.
We ain't in the same corner mind you, but at least you could use some ammo!
More help?
According to the Bible, abortion ain't murder. Some of the folks will despise me for considering that notion, but I'm just some guy after all.
Personally, I think that it is. But I ain't about to bury my Talents!
Call me a nice guy!
That's right! Everything that mankind *thinks* it knows is simply...you guessed it...interpretation of evidence. And ANYONE'S interpretation is as good as anyone else's! Using that fact, we've condensed hundreds of years of "knowledge" into a single, one-day course! Watch how easy this can be:
As you can see, learning is EASY at the GourmetDan School of Everything! When everything is relative, nothing is wrong! And when nothing is wrong, everything is right! Enroll now: you've already earned an 'A'!"
I have decided and presented. You merely confused yourself.
Just because 'no one' considers them metaphysical doesn't mean they aren't. That's the whole problem. Evos don't recognize the metaphysical nature of evolution. They think it really is 'scientific' because you all agree that it is.
Your criticisms were founded in confusion. I can't help you w/ your confusion. Just because you criticize doesn't mean it's invalid.
You have failed to counter claims that evolution is metaphysical. You just won't admit it.
It's not a viral genome because it doesn't produce virus particles.
You have sequences that you interpret as being the result of a historical insertion of a viral genome. That's all.
You assume common descent the instant you start 'tracing' a phylogenetic 'tree'. You have not shown that ERV infections happen only once and then move to fixation in any species, much less all of them. You merely assume such. That much is clear.
You don't even know that these are ERV's, you assume that because you think you find 'pieces' of a viral genome. You don't actually find a genome, you impose it on the data.
See, I knew you had no evidence.
If you had, you would have presented it and I would have proceeded to explain to you where the evidence ends and interpretation begins.
I see that strawmen and ridicule are the foundations of evolution.
But we already knew that.
You see ridicule, I see satire of the ridiculous.
So you're saying that thinking that ERV's represent a one-time historical infection in a member of a population that then moves to fixation for an unidentified 'commmon ancestor' and is preserved over millions of years through untold speciation events is reasonable?
Not happening once, but 'thousands of times' to represent the 'thousands' of ERV's identified in the human genome?
Not only is a single occurrence of such a fanciful tale ludicrous, but thinking that thousands of such 'occurrences' are real events is merely laughable.
Credulity, pure credulity. But that's 'science'.
OK fine. We have easily-identified DNA sequences, some of which are in the same positions in the genomes of different animals. What can we say about which animals? The observed facts are the sort I've been stating "IF a genetic marker is present in chimps and orangutans, it will also be found in people and gorillas", etc. This is a tree structure.
Note that so far nothing but genetic sequencing has entered the picture.
You assume common descent the instant you start 'tracing' a phylogenetic 'tree'
You're a bit confused here. The tree obtained from the ERVs is compared to the preexisting phylogenetic tree, and found to be the same.
You have not shown that ERV infections happen only once and then move to fixation in any species,
No, that's a deduction from the fact that all the ERVs follow the same pattern of presence/absence, that just happens to mimic the phylogenetic tree. Also, consider the Asian apes. An ERV common to both of them is inevitably found in all African apes. This argues against independent infections in many species.
... much less all of them. You merely assume such. That much is clear.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The theory is that the ERV got fixed once, in a common ancestor.
You don't even know that these are ERV's, you assume that because you think you find 'pieces' of a viral genome. You don't actually find a genome, you impose it on the data.
They just happen to be very much like what present-day viruses do to genomes. Therefore the correct phrase would be "find it in the data", not "impose it on the data". But, maybe, that's wrong. You still have genetic data that exactly matches the independently-derived phylogenetic tree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.